Call Of Duty: Ghosts Runs At Native 720p On Xbox One, 1080p On PS4

"The Game Looks Great On Both"

Infinity Ward has put some recent rumours to bed by totally confirming all of them.

NeoGAF and forums the internet over have been awash with rumours that the Xbox One version of Call Of Duty: Ghosts runs at native 720p upscaled to 1080p, while the PS4 version is capable of native 1080p visuals.

Infinity Ward boss Mark Rubin has now confirmed this state of affairs in a recent tweet. “Hey, been on the road last couple weeks so haven’t had a chance to update, but wanted to confirm that for Xbox One we’re 1080p upscaled from 720p," he wrote. "And, we’re native 1080p on PS4. We optimized each console to hit 60 FPS and the game looks great on both.”

With Battlefield 4 also seemingly running at 720p, is this proof of a significant performance gulf between the systems? Will it actually be an issue whatsoever if both versions play well and look good at 60FPS? We'll find out soon enough.

Definitely, but it did say they both are optimised to hit 60 FPS and I am sure that means without constant slowdowns.

If I get it, it will be on the PC and it will run at 120 with no slowdowns... however, I have been masively put off by their lies about the engine. MW3 looked and played like a 10 year old shooter... I will probably wait to see if MW4 looks as bad.

I'm sorely disappointed.
I expected 1080p running fairly smoothly at 60fps on both consoles from day one, but (arguably) the two biggest hitters have both announced 720p for the xb1, and either 900p or 1080p for the ps4.
That means the ps4 is slightly less capable than I expected, and the xb1 is significantly less.

Of course that'll improve for both consoles over the coming years as developers better learn and optimise what can be done - but that should result in improvements on both consoles meaning the xb1 will likely still be behind.

Of course graphics aren't the be all and end all.
But they're definitely a priority...

I totally agree chieftex, but it is also true that AA works better too when you have more pixels to play with. (When I can, I game on PC at 1080 with 32x AA and 120fps).

Late. IMO these early games are a very good guide to what the raw hardware can do. Sure, you can optimise things and make them more efficient down the line, but I feel this will probably reflect what the actual hardware can do.

Very disapointed by the looks of BF4 on the XO. While I have no interest in playing that on anything but PC, I want amazing graphics for Halo 5!

I'm not as tech-savvy as you chaps, but like I say, I'm disappointed with what we've seen.
I think every game I've seen looks great, graphically - but that's not a proper test. I need to see that it looks great (and runs smoothly) on a big 1080p tv to properly judge that. And I also need to know that it's not going to be completely incapable of displaying great numbers of polygons (terraflops? however they measure that these days) over the coming years.

The only saving grace is this ESRAM lark that I don't understand at all but believe has the potential to up the ox1's game once developers get to grips with it. (Please don't tell me that's wrong. My faith is crumbling, and I'd rather shore it up than watch it disintegrate completely!)